I'm just curious. Have any of you global warming crowd folks ever even considered the developing world when it comes to this?

Just curious.

God I hate you. Leave.

Who would be around to annoy you if he and Lenin Flux left? The board is significantly more boring when LW and his like minded comrades are busy with their 'real world' jobs. Not to say that Lenin Flux and LW are all that similar, but ya know, right of center folks are hardish to find hereabouts, especially when it comes to social issues.

I'm just curious. Have any of you global warming crowd folks ever even considered the developing world when it comes to this?

Just curious.

God I hate you. Leave.

yeah, seriously.

LittleWing, I'm currently writing a bunch of climate change impacts fact sheets for an NGO here to distribute to NGOs in developing pacific nations. We're actively trying to aid them in being aware of what might happen to them and what they can do. Does that answer your question?

That aside, you're missing what is at the very heart of this debate if you think they haven't been taken into account, and also must not be at all well read on the subject. A LOT of work has gone into climate change in developing nations. This issue brings the divide between the haves and have nots into sharp focus. How can we ask the developing world to forgo the use of fossil fuels, which have given us so many advantages? By providing them with the technology to skip this stage of industrialisation and start using renewable energy.

I can provide you with some articles/studies if you like, but I'd need to get the files off my home computer.

_________________Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the wayTo ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.

I'm just curious. Have any of you global warming crowd folks ever even considered the developing world when it comes to this?

Just curious.

God I hate you. Leave.

Why? Because what I said actually made you think just a little bit?

I gotta be quite frank. Throwing up a few windmills in America, selling a few thousand hybrid cars here. Putting better scrubbers on our smoke stacks. Apply it to Japan and Europe...it don't mean shit.

It's not going to have ANY impact on the long term, because the petty, pointless, nearly insignificant amount of good that's being done here is being overwhelmingly shadowed by the bad that's currently being done in southeast Asia. What the FUCK are you gonna do once all Indians and Chinese people get to the point where they can own cars? Make them all purchase expensive hybrids? Expect them to be corralled into public transit?

What about the ever exploding industrial complexes of these nations? The need for dirty industry is not shrinking on earth. It's exploding. We still need steel, and petroleum distallates, and chemicals, and plastics.

The idea that the entire developing world can instantaneously make a jump that AMERICA hasn't been able to do, and economically CANNOT do is ridiculous. And to be honest, they won't do it. You can write all the pamphlets you want to Indonesians, but that death cloud that covers Jakarta is just going to get worse, and worse, and worse, until their economy can support clean energy like ours can. Something that's at least a decade and a half away.

What the fuck do you guys plan on doing with Africa and India? How about the developing middle east? In all seriousness.

We're just going to give them "free stuff?" How many bazillions of dollars do you guys think it would cost to make America as clean as it needs to be to fulfill your ridiculous fantasy land? And you guys just want to up and give this stuff to the entire developing world? And you expect them to accept it and be able to maintain it?

You guys are living in a pipe dream.

You can feel free to provide me with all kinds of articles and studies you want. I'm open to information. But I gotta tell you, the idea that the third world is just going to skip the oil stage is fucking hilarious. Nobody is gonna flip that bill.

These countries can't afford anything other than coal or oil. What's more important to them? The environment? Or cheap reliable energy when in many nations a great deal of people don't even have electricity. Skip the SUV's...I gotta be honest, SUV's are the last of our concern. There are NO environmental regulations when it comes to any vehicles in any of these nations. They will be purchasing old, used, half broken down vehicles that burn and leak all kinds of nasty fluids. And be replacing the mini buses and big buses that just spew unfathanomable, unseen amounts of pollution. They can't afford better cars. They often buy spare parts already covered in oil to keep their ancient cars going.

Say, what about developing nations and what they do with their refuse? What do you think they do with old oil filters and old motor oil? How about other auto fluids? What do you think happens to industrial waste? What about major cities where garbage is burned non-stop? Dumping is an enormous problem across the third world. What do you think happens to tires in the third world?

What the impact of other development? What about continued population growth in the third world and its environmental impact.

It boggles my mind. And I kind of find it astonishing that you think we'll bypass this when there are still millions of people that don't have the proper resources to feed themselves.

I just read that China surpassed the USA as the world biggest emmiter of CO2!! I knew that this would happen soon, since China enery is very inefficient, and by that i mean something like... a random example: lets suppose that with one barrel of oil China produces 1 dollar in products, while the US can produce 4 dollars with the same amount of oil.

_________________There's just no mercy in your eyesThere ain't no time to set things rightAnd I'm afraid I've lost the fightI'm just a painful reminderAnother day you leave behind

I just read that China surpassed the USA as the world biggest emmiter of CO2!! I knew that this would happen soon, since China enery is very inefficient, and by that i mean something like... a random example: lets suppose that with one barrel of oil China produces 1 dollar in products, while the US can produce 4 dollars with the same amount of oil.

China has overtaken the United States as the top emitter of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, because of surging energy use in its economic boom, a Dutch government-funded agency said on Wednesday.

Other experts have estimated that China will only surpass the United States in coming years. The rise to number one emitter may put pressure on Beijing to do more to help a U.N.-led fight against global warming....

________________________

And LittleWing, this thread is about solutions, not bitching. Constructive posts only or get out.

_________________Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the wayTo ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.

Hardly a day goes by without a news article in the paper containing a reference to someone's opinion about "Global Warming". A quick search of the internet uncovers literally hundreds of items about "Global Warming". Issues of atmospheric science journals will normally have at least one article on climatic change, usually meaning "Global Warming" or some aspect thereof. Whole generations of graduate students have been trained to believe that we know the main answers about climate change and only have to work out the details.

Why then do I bother you by introducing this section with such a ludicrous title?

I do it because, as one who has spent many decades studying the subject professionally, I find that there are enormous gaps in the understanding of those making the most strident claims about climatic change. In order to read the news rationally, the educated reader needs a few keys to quickly sort the patently absurd from the possibly correct. I propose to supply some of those keys to give the reader at least a rudimentary nonsense detector.

Some Common Fallacies

1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and unique.

Wrong.

There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific literature with data that shows that the climate has been changing one way or the other for millions of years.

2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission.

Wrong.

That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.

3. The most important gas with a "greenhouse" effect is carbon dioxide.

Wrong.

Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide.

4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the climate effects of a doubling of carbon dioxide or other "greenhouse gases".

Wrong.

To show this we must show that the computer models can at least duplicate the present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination. There are studies that show that the average error in modeling present precipitation is on the order of 100%, and the error in modeling present temperature is about the same size as the predicted change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide. For many areas, the precipitation error is 300-400 percent.

5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done.

Wrong.

The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is often less than acceptably scientific.

6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon-dioxide-induced warming of the climate is a fact.

Probably wrong.

I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.

So What Can We Say about Global Warming?

We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of "greenhouse gases" until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question --- too important to ignore. However it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem. What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting2 and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!---------------------------------------------------------

1 Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of EnvironmentalStudies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission.

Wrong.

That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.

3. The most important gas with a "greenhouse" effect is carbon dioxide.

Wrong.

Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide.

6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon-dioxide-induced warming of the climate is a fact.

Probably wrong.

I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.

So What Can We Say about Global Warming?

We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of "greenhouse gases" until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question --- too important to ignore. However it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem. What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting2 and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!---------------------------------------------------------

1 Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of EnvironmentalStudies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Ref: Bryson, Reid A., 2004. Global Warming? Some common sense thoughts. This Week That Was March 20, 2004,

[/quote]

for points 2 and 6, , true no "vote" has taken place. but then there was no "vote" on the theory of evolution, or gravity or whatever. i'm not sure what the point is here. with a vote or not, the vast majority of the worlds climate scientists agree with some kind of man made global warming

and with your point 3, anything I have learned completely contradicts this. Without a doubt water vapour is a "greenhouse gas" but it is not 100 times worse than C02, anything i;ve read has said it is nowhere near as bad. and then theres methane which is 4 or 5 times worse than CO2. so I defiantly wouldn't trust anything from an article like that which is so obviously biased and likely wrong.

Hardly a day goes by without a news article in the paper containing a reference to someone's opinion about "Global Warming". A quick search of the internet uncovers literally hundreds of items about "Global Warming". Issues of atmospheric science journals will normally have at least one article on climatic change, usually meaning "Global Warming" or some aspect thereof. Whole generations of graduate students have been trained to believe that we know the main answers about climate change and only have to work out the details.

Why then do I bother you by introducing this section with such a ludicrous title?

I do it because, as one who has spent many decades studying the subject professionally, I find that there are enormous gaps in the understanding of those making the most strident claims about climatic change. In order to read the news rationally, the educated reader needs a few keys to quickly sort the patently absurd from the possibly correct. I propose to supply some of those keys to give the reader at least a rudimentary nonsense detector.

Some Common Fallacies

1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and unique.

Wrong.

There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific literature with data that shows that the climate has been changing one way or the other for millions of years.

2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission.

Wrong.

That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.

3. The most important gas with a "greenhouse" effect is carbon dioxide.

Wrong.

Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide.

4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the climate effects of a doubling of carbon dioxide or other "greenhouse gases".

Wrong.

To show this we must show that the computer models can at least duplicate the present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination. There are studies that show that the average error in modeling present precipitation is on the order of 100%, and the error in modeling present temperature is about the same size as the predicted change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide. For many areas, the precipitation error is 300-400 percent.

5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done.

Wrong.

The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is often less than acceptably scientific.

6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon-dioxide-induced warming of the climate is a fact.

Probably wrong.

I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.

So What Can We Say about Global Warming?

We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of "greenhouse gases" until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question --- too important to ignore. However it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem. What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting2 and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!---------------------------------------------------------

1 Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of EnvironmentalStudies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Ref: Bryson, Reid A., 2004. Global Warming? Some common sense thoughts. This Week That Was March 20, 2004,

That's completely WRONG. I don't have the time to go through it point by point now but will do so upon request elsewhere, because this thread is based upon finding solutions, not arguing about whether it is "real", as I explained in the opening post.... or anyone can look up the facts for themselves.

This kind of rubbish is not welcome here. Post it elsewhere, or grow a brain and stop posting it.

_________________Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the wayTo ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum